Topic 6 - Urban Fieldwork

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

An investigation into the variations in the quality of life in 2 wards in Guildford.

Question 2

Prediction

Answer 2

Quality of life will vary between wards.

Question 3

Specific study sites

Answer 3

Park barn
Merrow

Question 4

Study site key facts

Answer 4

Park Barn is more deprived than Merrow.

Question 5

Why was study site chosen?

Answer 5

Both sites have had studies carried out there before which means that there is an abundance of secondary data available.
• IMD
• Census data

Question 6

Risk assessment

Answer 6

• Getting lost
• Minibus accident
• Crossing road
• Slips, trips and falls

Question 7

Sampling strategies:
Stratified

Answer 7

Both areas were split into smaller sections and area sampled.

Question 8

Sampling strategies:
Random

Answer 8

This data was opportunistic as at different times it would vary.

Question 9

Qualitative and quantitative data collection methods

Answer 9

Qualitative: Questionnaire
Quantitative: Litter counts, traffic counts, noise level, environmental quality survey.

Question 10

Quantitative secondary data

Answer 10

• Census data (2011)
• IMD data (2015)

Question 11

Data processing

Answer 11

We organised out group data and class data on an excel spreadsheet where we created tables to show our findings.

Question 12

Data presentation

Answer 12

• Bar graph
• Radial graph
• Table

Question 13

Geographical theory

Answer 13

• Social deprivation could mean a lower quality of life in an area.
• Goes against the Burgess model as park barn is out of the CBD so should have a higher quality of life but it doesn’t.
• Quality of life can be linked to income - lower social classes will be less likely to afford housing therefore won’t invest in the area. Park barn has a lot of social housing.

Question 14

Evaluation:
Strengths of methods

Answer 14

• Noise meter more accurate
• Spent 5 minutes counting traffic

Question 15

Evaluation:
Limitations

Answer 15

• Not enough sites
• Not fairest way to select sites
• Small number of people asked
• Very subjective
• Only that time of day

Question 16

Evaluation:
Improvements

Answer 16

• Time of day
• More sites
• Different range of people

Question 17

Evaluation:
Secondary data

Answer 17

Strengths
• Reliable
Limitations:
• Outdated
• Too broad
• Subjective
Improvements:
• More up to date data
• More relevant to the area

Question 18

Conclusions

Answer 18

This was proven to be true because the environmental quality survey shows that Merrow scored more highly and therefore has a better quality of life. Also other data I collect it seems to prove that Merrow has a better quality of life and we updated to support this. This links and supports the IMD secondary data and research we have done on the places. However, the questionnaire showed no variation in the quality of life.